[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [俱舍論疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822) › 3.58 # 俱舍論疏 3.58 俱舍論疏 3.58 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.58](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.3.58) 論「又諸喉齒至不應立根」，此是太過失也。《正理》云「太過失者，彼所立根應無限量等。」問：七十五法何故色唯五根、心王全，通中唯取受、念、定、慧四，善中唯取信、勤二法，不相應中唯取命根不取餘法。答：若依餘師，此十三法於流轉、還滅有勝用故建立為根，餘用非勝不立根也。若依曇無德，即此十三法是心所依，此別、此住、此雜染、此資糧、此淨，故立為根，餘法不爾不立為根。《正理》「問云：諸法相望各各別有增上用故，應竝名根。答云：此極增上，別說義成。如師子王及村邑主。」如前已引此文。問：此中將勝能作因，對增上果當立為根，豈能親於因緣對果而反不立根耶？ > Regarding the passage in the treatise, “Furthermore, the throat, teeth … up to … should not be established as faculties”: This is the fault of excessive over-extension. The \*Nyāyānusāra\* says: “As for the fault of excessive over-extension: the faculties established by them would have no limit, and so forth.” Question: Among the seventy-five dharmas, why is it that among material forms only five are faculties, the primary mind is fully included, among the universal \[mental factors\] only four—sensation, mindfulness, concentration, and discernment—are taken, among the wholesome \[mental factors\] only the two dharmas of faith and diligence are taken, and among the non-associated \[dharmas\] only the life faculty is taken, with the remaining dharmas excluded? Answer: According to other masters, these thirteen dharmas have superior functions in \[the processes of\] transmigration and cessation, and are therefore established as faculties, whereas the other functions are not superior and are not established as faculties. According to the Dharmaguptakas, these very thirteen dharmas are the bases of the mind: this differentiates it, this sustains it, this defiles it, this provides its provisions, and this purifies it; therefore they are established as faculties, whereas other dharmas are not such and are not established as faculties. The \*Nyāyānusāra\* states: “Question: Since dharmas mutually have distinct predominant functions, should they all equally be called faculties? Answer: These are exceedingly predominant; their distinct statement is justified. It is like a lion king or a village chief.” This text was already cited earlier. Question: Here, when the superior efficient cause (kāraṇahetu) is correlated with the sovereign fruit (adhipatiphala) to be established as a faculty, how could it be that what is directly a causal condition (hetupratyaya) correlated with a fruit is conversely not established as a faculty? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.57](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.3.57) - [Next: 3.59](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.3.59) - [Up: 3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.3) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822~en-mt.3.58) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (2) - [俱舍論頌疏論本](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1823.3.19) — Classical Chinese - [阿毘達磨俱舍論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.abhidharma.abhidharmakosa!bhasya*zh-xuanzang.3.11) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.3.58](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.3.58) · Pramāṇa